TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Ross

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. W. B. ROSS, J. M. BRITE, WM. R. JORDAN, A. T. LIGHTNER, W. H. WILLIAMS, BLACKBURN WYATT, and J. J. MURPHY

People v. Ross, 38 Cal. 76 (1869)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1869
Judges
Sanderson
Citations
38 Cal. 761869 Cal. LEXIS 112
Syllabus
Sheriff and Tax Collector.—The offices of Sheriff and Tax Collector, although held hy the same person, are separate and distinct offices. Official Bonds of Person holding two Offices.—In the absence of a statute to the contrary expressly, a person holding two separate offices must give two separate official bonds. Statutory Construction.—If a statute providing for the organization of a new county contains no provision in relation to official bonds,-they must he given in conformity to the general law upon that subject.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixteenth District, Kern County. The plaintiffs appealed. By the statute enacting and organizing the County of Kern, it was provided that the Sheriff of the County should be, ex officio, Tax Collector. The statute contained no provision to the effect that his official bond as Sheriff should serve also as his official bond as Tax Collector, or that he should be required to give but one bond, which should be for the faithful performance of the duties of both offices. The respondent, Boss, was elected Sheriff, and gave a bond with his co-defendants as sureties, of which the conditions were as follows : “The conditions of the above obligations are such, that whereas, at a special election held in and for the County of Kern, on the 12th day of July, 1866, the above bonnden William B. Boss was duly elected Sheriff, and ex officio Tax Collector for said county; Now, therefore, if the said William B. Boss shall well and faithfully perform all the duties of said office, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise, to be and remain in full force and effect. ” This action was brought upon the foregoing bond, to recover of Boss and his co-defendants the amount of an alleged defalcation in the office of Tax Collector. The defendants demurred, upon the general ground that the bond declared on was the bond of Boss, as Sheriff only, and not as Tax Collector, and that, therefore, no recovery could be had upon it for a non-performance of the duties of the office of Tax Collector. The Court below sustained the demurrer upon that ground.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Sanderson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Sanderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court:

The offices of Sheriff and Tax Collector of Kern County, though held by the same person, are, nevertheless, separate and distinct offices. (Lathrop v. Brittain, 30 Cal. 680 .) In the absence of any statute expressly providing that one official bond only shall be required of a person who holds both offices, and that such bond shall be for the faithful performance of the duties of both offices, a separate bond for each office is as much required as if they were held by different persons. (People v. Love, 25 Cal. 520 .)

The statute creating Kern County contains no provisión to the effect that the bond of the Sheriff shall also be his bond as Tax Collector. It contains no provision whatever upon the subject of the Tax Collector’s bond, but leaves it to the general law. (Stats. 1861, p. 419, Secs. 25 and 26.) "While, under the revenue law just cited, two offices, in certain counties, are allowed by the twenty-fifth section to be held by the same person, as in the statute creating the County of Kern, yet, by the twenty-sixth section, each Tax Collector, irrespective of the fact whether he is also the incumbent of some other office, is required to give a separate bond, as therein provided. It is, undoubtedly, within the power of the Legislature to provide that there may be but one bond for both offices, as was done, in effect, under the revenue law of 1854 (People v. Love, supra); but since it was decided by this Court that the offices of Sheriff and Tax Collector, under the Constitution, are separate and distinct offices (People v. Edwards, 9 Cal. 286 ), it has not been the practice of the Legislature to do so, so far as we are advised. As was said in the case of the People v. Edwards , the offices *78 are not so blended that the bond executed for the faithful performance of the duties appertaining to the one would embrace, in the absence of a statute to that effect, the obligations belonging to the other.

Had no provision been made in the statute creating the County of Kern, in relation to official bonds, the whole matter would have fallen within the general laws upon the subject. (See laws upon the subject of official bonds, and the offices of Sheriff, Clerk, Recorder, etc.) So far as it deals with the subject, however, and no further, it takes it out of the operation of those laws.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1882–1883: 11884–1885: 11886–1887: 11888–1889: 21890–1891: 11904–1905: 11912–1913: 11930–1931: 11934–1935: 218822026peak 1888 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Union Bank & Trust Co. v. County of Los Angeles38 P.2d 442 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
  2. Attorney General ex rel. McRae v. Thompson168 Mich. 511 (1912)
  3. State ex rel. Stain v. Christensen35 P.2d 775 (Utah 1934) · Dissent
  4. State ex rel. Davenport v. Laughton19 Nev. 202 (1885)
  5. Ex parte Bergman26 P. 914 (Wyo. 1890)
  6. Swinnerton v. Monterey County18 P. 135 (Cal. 1888)

Most recent

  1. Union Bank & Trust Co. v. County of Los Angeles38 P.2d 442 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
  2. State ex rel. Stain v. Christensen35 P.2d 775 (Utah 1934) · Dissent
  3. City of San Bruno v. National Surety Co.5 P.2d 951 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)
  4. Attorney General ex rel. McRae v. Thompson168 Mich. 511 (1912)
  5. City of Oakland v. Snow78 P. 1060 (Cal. 1904)
  6. Ex parte Bergman26 P. 914 (Wyo. 1890)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Edwards, 9 Cal. 286 (1858) 38
People v. Love, 25 Cal. 520 (1864) 21
Lathrop v. Brittain, 30 Cal. 680 (1866) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list